Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV40027, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40027    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

          Plaintiff  Jorge Hernandez Verdel (“Plaintiff”) seeks a person most qualified (“PMQ”) on certain topics to be produced by Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff further seeks production of documents reflected in each of the categories attached to the deposition notice.  Plaintiff also seeks $1,860 in discovery sanctions.

          The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion as set forth below.  Defendant shall produce a PMQ and responsive documents within 30 days.  Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $1,860 in attorney’s fees within 30 days. 

The parties’ respective positions can be found in their filings, including the separate statements. The Court’s rulings on each request are set forth below.  In general, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant must produce a PMQ and documents as set forth below. 

PMQ Categories 1-4:  Defendant shall produce a deponent. 

Request for Document 1:  Defendant shall produce all responsive documents.

Request for Documents No. 2:  Defendant shall produce all responsive documents.

Request for Documents No. 3:  Defendant shall produce responsive documents sufficient to show any policies and procedures that are responsive to this request.   Defendant shall not have to search for or produce emails. 

Request for Documents No. 4:  Defendants shall produce all responsive documents for a reasonable time period before the events at issue in this lawsuit took place. 

Request for Documents No. 5:  Defendants shall produce all responsive documents.

Request for Documents No. 6:  The Court agrees that this request is vague and overbroad.  Defendant need not produce further documents responsive to this request.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for discovery sanctions in the amount of $1,860.  (See 12/18/2023 Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.)  Defendant is a frequent litigant in Lemon Law cases and, like many Lemon Law defendants, is subject to frequent discovery motions and requests for discovery sanctions.  Accordingly, the Court wishes to specifically address a mistaken legal argument that Defendant makes in its papers on the issue of discovery sanctions. 

Defendant argued that “Sanctions should be reserved for only the most blatant discovery misconduct.”  (Opp. at 8:12-13.)  This is not a correct statement of California law.  Plaintiff seeks its attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 2025.450, subdivision (g), which states:  “If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”   Thus, imposition of sanctions is mandatory—it is the default—unless the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification or there are other special circumstances. The Court makes no such findings in this case exempting Defendant from the ordinary rule that sanctions must be awarded.  Accordingly, the Court grants the sanctions request.